CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata

This page is for errata in The Complete Lojban Language, that is for mistakes such as typos, or self-contradictions, or contradictions with other baselined language definition material. This is not a page to put desiderata (suggestions for improvement); such suggestions should go to Suggestions for CLL, second edition. This is also not a page to put errata resulting from the 4th Baseline Grammar proposal (i.e., the PEG grammar); PEG grammar errata should go to CLL PEG Errata.

An online version of the CLL incorporating the changes on this page is available.

The very first picture has a pedagogical error: "coi lojban." should be "coi .lojban." (This is an error even by pre-dotside standards, as pre-dotside, only {la}/{lai}/{doi} didn't require a pause before cmevla.)

There is a paragraph at the very beginning of CLL, on page 4, with the sentence "In essence, Chapter 2 gives a brief overview of the language, Chapter 21 gives the formal structure of the language, and the chapters in between put semantic bones on that formal flesh."

Wouldn't it make more sense to say "put semantic flesh on those formal bones"?

1

❗

✅DAG

-

Section 6, it says "Larry Horn's work The Natural History of Negation". It would appear that everyone else calls it A Natural History of Negation, by Laurence (R.) Horn.

Section 2.2 paragraph 2 says "o as in “dome”" but Australian/British English pronounces "dome" as per http://howjsay.com/index.php?word=dome&submit=Submit (i.e. a diphthong, which would be incorrect). This may result in many readers learning the wrong pronunciation of Lojban.

This sort of issue also exists in the "Level 0 Booklet" publication.

There must be a better example word that has the correct "o" for all dialects of English - is "lozenge" a good word?

At the very least, specify which dialect is intended.

2

-

-

-

Section 5 example 5.7 uses "ti" to point at a language, and should have its accompanying note changed to more accurately reflect that this is not how "ti" works.

2

❗

✅1.1

-

Section 6 Example 6.5 has "cu" as elidable, when in fact it is simply illegal there. Removed. ✅DAG

Example 17.9 in dag-cll as of 2012-05-05 is "le vi tavla [ku] cu ba klama". Since the same section has explained that tense tags make "cu" unnecessary, I think the example should be "le vi tavla [ku] [cu] ba klama".

3

-

-

-

A lot of the IPA examples use a space to indicate a syllable break. This is not standard IPA usage; according to IPA, the period “.” should be used to indicate a syllable division.

For future editions :-) , note that the IPA approves putting diacritics above rather than below the letter in cases like these. Unfortunately, the fonts hitherto available have not made this facility available, so outside the journal of the IPA itself, such over-diacritics are seldom seen. — nitcion

In section 3.2, the comma should (probably) be represented by the IPA notation [.], as the period is used in IPA to denote syllable breaks.

3

-

-

-

Section 2, page 30. For the Lojban phoneme /r/, the IPA symbol for a dental/alveolar voiced apical tap is given with a syllabicity marker below. A tap can't be syllabic, because it is by definition instantaneous. ✔Cowan Just remove that case altogether.

Section 6, page 36. IPA for the unacceptable American flap variant of intervocalic t shows the GA r sound (upside-down r) instead of the flap (like an r with no vertical bit at the top — see the list of acceptible r variants on on page 44 where it appears correctly) ✔Cowan

Section 6, p 58, "-lac" in the third table in that section should be "-lac-"

4

❗

✅1.1

-

Section 6, it says "Most cmavo that have rafsi are ones used in composing tanru (for a complete list, see Chapter 12)", but there is no such list in Chapter 12, or anywhere in the book (ju'osai). Perhaps it wants to point to the list of PA rafsi in Chapter 18 section 25? Or to the lists of tanru in Chapter 5 sections 14 and 15?

What I probably meant was that Chapter 12, taken as a whole, discusses the cmavo used in constructing tanru. I don't think any specific list ever existed. I'd just drop the parenthetical sentence.

Related is the general problem of constructing tanru out of arbitrary cmavo, like what {lo ve lujvo be fo lu <ga'e zei lerfu> li'u} should be. {ze'oi} was invented for that purpose... probably too experimental for CLL though.

Section 6, just after example 6.9. It says "some of the unreduced forms in the previous example", but it is not referring to the previous example: it is referring all the way back to examples 6.1 and 6.2, so it should be "some of the unreduced forms in the previous examples".

Section 7, page 60. In example 6.16, the word "xarnykarce" is glossed as "war-car". Either the gloss should be updated to reflect the veljvo ("stubborn-car"), or the lujvo should be updated to reflect the gloss "jamkarce"

Section 7, step 5 of the Stage 3 fu'ivla: "if the rafsi ends in r and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with n (or vice versa) use an l-hyphen" should read "if the rafsi ends in r and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with n, tc, ts, dz or dj, or the rafsi ends in n and the rest of the fu'ivla begins with r use an l-hyphen". ✔Cowan

4

-

-

-

The end of section 7 seems to imply that cmene are exempt from the normal restrictions on consonant clusters as long as each consonant pair is valid.

Section 11, 5a) Examine all the C/C consonant pairs that join the CVC rafsi, and also the pair between the last CVC and the X portion, ignoring any "y"-hyphen before the X. should read instead: Examine all the C/C consonant pairs up to the first "y"-hyphen, or up to the end of the word in case there are no "y"-hyphens.

Section 13, page 74, third table: there is no space between "lojbaugri" and "lojbangygri", so that they are run into one word in the second column of the table.

4

-

-

-

Section 15 states that "dzipo" comes from "cadzu cipni" ("walking bird"). This fails to make sense either etymologically or semantically (If the name refers to penguins, there are a lot of other features of Antarctica that are more prominent and not shared by other places). I suspect that the word may actually come from "dizlo daplu" ("low island"), which is a somewhat more reasonable name.

Not an erratum, the word really does come from "caDZu cIPni". That it fails to make sense doesn't change the fact that that is how they constructed it. The etymologies of "bemro" and "ketco" make even less sense, by the way.

Section 8 says "involving selma'o VOhA and GOhI, explained in Chapter 7", but VOhA doesn't appear in Chapter 7. VOhA doesn't even seem to be a selma'o, for that matter. Also, probably GOhI should be GOhA?

Section 12 the text says examples 121 and 122 "use {ke} grouping and {bo} grouping respectively", but it isn't true. Example 121 uses only implicit tanru grouping, while 122 in fact uses {ke} grouping. Also, the text says they are equivalent in meaning, but they aren't (in the first one, {cadzu} groups with {masno}). Perhaps it's missing a {bo}? The translations of examples 121-126 are all affected by this false claim of equivalence.

"normal grouping" 1.2❓

5

-

-

-

Section 12, last example says that {broda be fi ko'i ko'e} has {ko'e} in the x4 place because {be fi} moves the counter to 3. jbofi'e disagrees, but this may not be a CLL errata -- I haven't checked the linkargs section yet to see if it is consistent.

Section 14, page 112 lists numerous tanru examples whose meanings are hypernyms of the tertau instead of hyponyms. This contradicts the primariness of the tertau as defined on page 84. The word "ja" should probably be inserted between the constituents, or the entire section should be removed.

Stet. Lions can't be made of stone, but {rokci cinfo} is a legitimate tanru nonetheless. --John Cowan

6

❗

✅1.1

-

End of section 2, it says "compound negator ``naku (discussed in Chapter 15)", but "naku" is never mentioned in chapter 15; indeed, the only uses of the word {ku} at all are after the words {ji'u} or {na'i}. Chapter 16 talks about {naku}.

Section 2 has examples 2.3 and 2.5 to show the difference between {lo} and {le}. Example 2.5 and the subsequent text say that {lo nanmu cu ninmu} is necessarily false in lojban since {noda nanmu gi'e ninmu}. This contributes to trans-erasure, and should be revised.

Section 5. http://lojban.github.io/cll/7/6/index.html. 6.14 is usage with outer repeating. It would seem that was a mistake. Looking at that, it seems like the author expects {nei} to repeat the entire outermost bridi, and expects {no'a} to repeat the outer bridi alone, somehow without the current innermost bridi. Or something. Definitely seems mistaken to me. so with zo'e in place of the abstraction clause. In this case, maybe with {zi'o}, actually.That would be useful but it would be nice if that had been explicit.

7

✘Cowan

-

-

Section 6, page 155 has a note below example 6.13 that says, in part: "The Lojban does not contain an equivalent of the "my" in colloquial English;" and then goes on to explain how example 6.13 could be modified to include the relationship between the speaker and their son and daughter. I believe you could say "le mi bersa" or "le bersa pe mi" to express the English "my," therefor removing the (presumably inaccurate) note and making the Lojban translation more accurate.

Sure you could, but the point of the note (which is not inaccurate) is not teaching how to use relative clauses, but to clarify that the idiomatic English version contains more information than the Lojban version does. Stet.

Example 7.39.
A: mi ba klama le zarci
A: I [future] go-to the store.
A: I am going to the store.
B: mi nelci le si'o mi go'i
B: I like the concept-of I [repeat-last-bridi].
B: I like the idea of my going.
A: do go'e
A: You [repeat-last-bridi-but-one].
A: You'll go, too.
...
Example 7.45.
mi ba lumci le mi karce
I will wash my car.
you might reply either:
Example 7.46.
mi go'i
I will wash your car.
or:
Example 7.47.
mi go'i ra'o
I will wash my car.
The ra'o forces the second mi from the original bridi to mean the new speaker rather than the former speaker. This means that go'e ra'o would be an acceptable alternative to do go'e in B's statement in Example 7.39.

After example 6.18 is a paragraph that quotes non-existent text from example 6.10. "go'e ra'o" should read "go'i ra'o" and "do go'e" should read "mi go'i"

The correct correction is to replace "B's statement" with "A's second statement". ✔Cowan

Not really. "go'e ra'o" in A's second statement would mean the same as "go'e", which is wrong. The original correction is valid though.

7

-

-

-

Section 6, the exceptions to the anaphora rules are almost certainly incomplete. In particular "ma" and "ce'u" definitely warrant exceptions.

Section 8, p. 158 implies that vo'a-series anaphora refer to sumti of the bridi they themselves are sumti of. This contradicts the cmavo list, and is incorrect: vo'a-series anaphora (according to the ma'oste) refer to sumti of the outermost bridi within the current sentence. This makes them logophors/long distance reflexives, rather than short-distance reflexives, as is normal in human language. Thus, in mi nelci lenu do prami vo'a, vo'ameans mi, not do.

Section 8, it says "Example 9.3 is a truly pregnant question..." when example 9.2 is the pregnant question, and example 9.3 is a better way of expressing "Who are you?"

7

-

-

-

Section 15, it says "Finally, lujvo involving ``zi'o are also possible, and are fully discussed in Chapter 12", but nowhere does Chapter 12 mention the word {zi'o}, much less lujvo involving it. This is probably a Chapter 12 erratum.

Section 8, Example 8.6, the third line, "I runningly-go to-this reciprocityx3 of this bridi from-that", is not the usual decent English one would expect in that position; replaced with "I run to this from that and vice versa." is dag-cll ✅DAG

Section 9, example 9.2 is co'o xirma. Then, Note that Example 9.2 says farewell to something which doesn’t really have to be a horse, something that the speaker simply thinks of as being a horse, or even might be something (a person, for example) who is named "Horse". In a sense, Example 9.2 is ambiguous between "co'o le xirma" and "co'o la xirma". Is this true?

Yes, in the sense that all uses of "le" might mean "la". But it's probably more confusing than it's worth. Truncate after "thinks of as being a horse". --John Cowan

Not sure that is right. I think too much focus in general has been given to {le}'s "non-veridicality", when it is merely more of an outgrowth of it being a deictic/phoric descriptor. In general, {le nanmu} does refer to a {nanmu}, but sometimes it may not because the deictic/phoric needs supercede veridicality (If someone has been called "the man" but you want to assert that "he"'s actually a woman, well, you get the {le nanmu cu ninmu} example.)

My point though, is that I'm not sure one can just say "{le} might actually mean {la}". Certainly it'd be unusual to say that a speaker thinks of someone named "Horse" as being a horse. -- User:Spheniscine

Section 9 says In vocative phrases which are simple names (after the vocative words), any relative clauses must come just after the names. This isn't true. Relative clauses can go between the vocative and the cmevla. ✔Cowan Drop it; it reflects an earlier state of the language.

Section 25, this whole section is at odds with the formal grammar. It says: It is grammatical for a termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag rather than a sumti. But that is in fact incorrect, it is not grammatical for a termset to be the argument of a tag.

Unfortunately true. Termsets suck rocks, and some work will have to be done to make everything said about them consistent -- if it is even possible. Personally, I'd like to just burn them. --John CowanNOFIX

Section 15, two paragraphs before example 15.7. It says "There are some comparative concepts which are in which the 'se zmadu' is difficult to specify." The "which are in which" seems grammatically incorrect.

Section 12, example 12.91 and the text that follows: "klamau: z1, more than z2, goes to k2 from k3 via k4 by means of k5 ... For example, while nelcymau has z4 as its fourth place, klamau has it as its sixth place."

"mi facki fi lemi mapku" is used repeatedly for "I found my hat". While this is not wrong, it's bad style and makes the gloss awkward in respect to the translation. Replacing "facki" with "zvafa'i" would remove the problem and make it more precise.

Section 14, "the stated gloss of TFTTas “only if” works naturally only when the right-hand bridi is true; if it is false, the left-hand bridi may be either true or false." changed to "the stated gloss of TFTTas “only if” works naturally only when the right-hand bridi is false; if it is true, the left-hand bridi may be either true or false."

Section 17, example 17.4 is wrong. The section explains that mekso operators can be logically connected using {gu'e ... gi ...}, but this example tries to connect them with {ge ... gi ...}. Replace {ge} with {gu'e} in the example to correct it.

change "A ``na before the selbri is always transformed into a ``naku at the left-hand end of the prenex, and vice versa." to: "A ``na before the selbri is always transformed into a ``naku at the right-hand end of the prenex, and vice versa."

Section 8, the explanation of example 8.3 says "any entity which is one is also the other". That would be true if the example used {go}, but it uses {ganai}. 8.3 does not claim that if something walks across the field then it goes to the store. ✔Cowan Change it to use {go}. ✅DAG

Same place: needs to bo {da go}, not {go da} And the gloss should be "For-every X: X is-a-goer-to the store if-and-only-if it is-a-walker-on the field." ✅DAG

16

❗

✅DAG

-

Section 8, example 8.3. Either the {da} should come before the {ganai} (or, by the previous ^ erratum, {go}) and the gloss should be changed to only mention "X" once, or a {da} should be inserted before {cadzu}.

Section 10, ex. 10.5 and 10.6 have a prenex, "naku zo'u", after an ijek. This is not allowed by the grammar. It could be fixed by removing the "zo'u" and using "naku" outside the prenex, although this is only explained in the following Section 11.

This is a big problem, and I'm not sure what should be fixed. --John CowanNOFIX

In section 13, the first paragraph states "Historically, these character sets have only covered the English alphabet and a few selected punctuation marks.", which is incorrect. There have been multitudes of character sets for writing systems other than the English alphabet.

Change to something along the line of "Historically, each of these character sets has only covered a particular writing system."

In the table in section 19, the lervla for over-dot (".garmoc. bu") and over-ring (".garjin. bu") should be updated to their post-Reallocation forms, ".gapmoc. bu" and ".gapyjin. bu".

17

❗

✅1.1

-

Section 19 has two columns run together in the row that says "Danish/Latin aetei .abu .ebu foi"

18

-

-

-

ju'u is in VUhU. It should be of the type PA. Notice how {pi} and {ni'u} and {ka'o} and {ci'i} and {fi'u} are all of type {pa}, so they can go in a numerical literal between digits. especially {ka'o}, which can separate the real part and imaginary part to make a complex literal, and similarly {su'o} and {su'e} can separate numbers to make intervals.

In section 11, "lei ratcu poi zvati le panka cu so'umei fo lo'i ratcu", but there is no 4th place of mei.

Remove the "fo";

la gleki:

This introduced two more problems.

First, the part "However, when the number expressed before -mei is an objective indefinite number of the kind explained in Section 18.8, a slightly different place structure is required: x1 is a mass formed from a set x2 of n members, one or more of which is/are x3, measured relative to the set x4." became useless.

Secondly, the following phrase "the x2 and x3 places are vacant, and the x4 place is filled by lo'i ratcu, which (because no quantifiers are explicitly given) means “the whole of the set of all those things which are rats”, or simply “the set of all rats.”" became incorrect. I suggest restoring {fo}.

In section 17, example 17.5, {gi} should be replaced by {gu'e}, because mekso operators are to be connected by guheks. This is essentially the same mistake as in example 14/17.4.

18

-

✅1.1

-

In section 17, the English translation for example 17.6 has the formula rendered wrong in the HTML version. The fraction bar should be added (it is invisble currently), and the words "then x =" should be vertically aligned to the fraction bar (they are currently aligned to the numerator).

In section 17, at the bottom of page 454, the quadratic formula should be described as a classic example of operator logical connection, not operand.

18

❗

✅DAG

-

In section 17, 17.7 (li no ga'o bi'o ke'i pa) is *not* equivalent to 17.9 (li pimu su'i ni'upimu bi'o ma'upimu). I (rlpowell) have replaced bi'o with "bi'o ke'i" in the latter. NOT APPROVED but ✅DAG

18

❗

✅DAG

-

In section 17, the Lojban of 17.8 (li pimu ga'o mi'i ke'i pimu) is not equivalent to 0.5 ± 0.5, regardless of how the latter is interpreted; I (rlpowell) have removed that English equivalency. NOT APPROVED but ✅DAG

Section 21 states that the rafsi of "frinu" may be used as rafsi for "fi'u"; however, "frinu" lost both of its short rafsi in the Reallocation, so this really isn't very useful. The table below lists "fi'u" as a rafsi usable for "fi'u", therefore of "frinu"; the gimste lists "fi'u" as a rafsi of "cfipu".

This is a serious problem which needs some thought. There needs to be a rafsi for fi'u somehow. --John CowanNOFIX

Section 18.26 says that cu'o is a rafsi of cu'o: "cu'o (borrowed from cunso...". This makes no sense since one rafsi can't belong to two words.

18

-

-

-

Section 21 "“se” can be used to convert an operator as if it were a selbri, so that its arguments are exchanged." is a false statement. se converts tanru-unit-2, not selbri. Anyway, just say "“se” is also used to exchange arguments of an operator". mu'o mi'e La Gleki (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2015 (PDT)

It needs "vei" in front to be a quantifier (an operand by itself is not a permitted fragment). Also, the following text mentions "te'u" but the example omits it.

None of those examples parse without {li}, which I have added to all. Replaced the one in question with "li mo'e voboi renomei te'u su'i ze"

18

❗

✅1.1

-

Section 25. The rafsi for "so'e", -sop-, is missing, the rafsi for the following four words are listed under the wrong word. That is, -sor- is actually the rafsi for "so'i", and -daz- is the rafsi for "da'a".